tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 8, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
i have stopped getting responses back from sending resume out. i decided i would try to make it with what i have saved and quit looking. host: when you look for jobs, what kind of things are you looking for? what kind of requirements to you have for your next job? caller: anything from a public defender to the jobs that i had before. i have found jobs that pay $10 an hour. i was making $50 an hour. i cannot take that big a hit. host: you have exhausted unemployment. caller: what is your -- what are your living conditions?
-- host: what are your living conditions? caller: i am living off of my savings now. just waiting for retirement to kick in, which is for another 8 years. host: we hear about unemployment in the newspapers and media sources. what could you add to those listening to give the personal side of unemployment? caller: it makes you start doubting yourself and make you wonder if you will get another job.
host: tell us about your job prospects. give us a call. this is ken from michigan. caller: ironically, i work for the state of michigan unemployment insurance agency. a hundred thousand people collected and stitches. governor snyder decided he wants to lead off -- 100,000 people collected extensions.
i do not think this is a good man, governor snyder. host: what are your plans for making it? i graduated from oakland university. i have said -- sent out to resume is -- resumes. what else can i do? host: what are the responses? caller: i have gotten a response from an appliance store. i want to put my college education to work. maybe medical billing or something along the lines of being an unemployment claims representative.
host: are you collecting unemployment? caller: only as a last resort. i do not want to collect on insurance -- unemployment insurance. another thing governor schneider did was that they cut an insurance -- unemployment insurance from 26 weeks to 20 weeks. the unemployment rate is still at 9%. it will probably shoot up after yesterday's announcement. caller: how long do you have before you consider collecting unemployment. ? host: i called for the first time on the 19th. it hurts. after seeing governor gran home, she never turned her back on working people or -- grandholm
, she did the best she could. the other party did not want to work with her. this government snyder was elected as the nerd. he was elected -- he has no legislative experience. it hurts me that he is leading the state and he turned his back on 400 state workers. he had to get his new detroit international bridge built. host: thanks. next up is the clinton township, michigan. annette has identified herself as stopped looking. tell us a little bit about your experience.
finish my teaching dissertation. >> when it comes to the demographics from the labor report amongst -- defined by race it says for those that identify as white -- hispanic is 10.2%. four categories when it comes to age. that is teenagers. unemployment rate for them when it comes to august host: tell us about the job you are looking for. caller: am currently working on my master's. i got a job offer in and the york. and i was laid off from that position. currently, i am finding out
that -- i am african american. i am finding out that african- americans are not being hired. whites and hispanics are being hired. i talked to mike representatives about that in my state. and it to me is sabotaging black folks not to find jobs. i supported mccain. but after obama won i supported him. and i do not think is his fault. he has a congress that is not working with him. black people are being punished for supporting obama. you are not giving us a job. i have a house that isn't modification ready to give foreclosed on. just because a black man is president. that is not far. -- not fair
courts what kind of industry is it an? caller: i did everything last night. host: how many interviews have you been on? caller: i have been on two interviews. they have these tests and all of this stuff to read you out. the weeding out process. he did not expect to be able to do that. i went on an interview -- you had to know everything about word, excel. you had to go through that. just anything that they can do to test you to lead you out of the process.
all white and hispanic america do not know microsoft suite. we have just been punished. that is obvious. i am still going to vote for obama. one thing i learned -- i did not need the money to buy the trinkets. i had a nice home, nice car. i do not need the trinkets. it has caught -- taught me a lesson. what the trinkets steny in the store. let them keep their houses, their clothes. and live like i am doing in the basement of my mother. thay have taught me these four years. i do not need the trinkets. host: next is emelia. caller: i stopped looking for
work. i had a 34-year-old sister. she recently passed away. i am trying to get back into the workforce but i have been so frustrated. no one will hire me. i tried wal-mart, target. i tried 99 cent store. i have 17 years of banking experience. no one will hire me with that experience because no fault of my own and had to file for bankruptcy. when you file for bankruptcy and you work for a financial and institution, no one will touch your because they feel you are not responsible enough to take care of your own finances. you are a high risk employee.
there will not hire you in the financial industry. i filed for bankruptcy because i went credit cards to family members. they defaulted. i was not working. i was caring for my sister. and it ruined my credit. you learn your lessons. you move forward. but i am trying to find -- i am still caring for my mother. who has parkinson's. so i am trying to find a part- time job and save money and go to school. it is impossible to find a simple retail -- how long have you been actively looking? caller: about one year and a half. host: how many interviews have you been caller::i of had two -- host: how many interviews have
you been on? caller: i have been on two interviews. i blame age discrimination. no one wants to hire a 50 year old. at target they want to hire young kids. i can do stocking and capturing just like young kids. i used to do it in a high school to pay for my education. and it was my choices, what i have done. but i cannot believe how hard it is to find a simple part-time job. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for sharing your story. if you are just joining us, this goes in the light of information released from the job department yesterday. 8.1% unemployment. 96,000 jobs created for august.
but for your personal story as far as your job prospects are concerned, if you are unemployed, we are interested in hearing from you over the next 20 minutes. the numbers on the screen are how we divide it for those still looking and those will stop looking. for those who are still looking 2020-737-001. 0002 for those who of stopped looking. democrats and connecticut and the democratic caucus chairman will be our guest -- john larson. we talked to him about the unemployment figure released yesterday. and what that means as congress reconvenes next week. >> it means we are headed in the right direction. but what it means emphatically is that republicans ought to take up the job bill. it is the only bonafide job a bill that is out there.
that put 2.1 million people back to work. that is the essential thing that is needed. we have not met often. i am sure both jonathans will verify that. referred repeatedly the republicans talk about the number of people unemployed. it just seems like -- their policies seem to be geared toward seeing the president fail rather than the nation succeed. by that i mean putting people back to work. that should be the order of business. we should not leave until we get a jobs bill don. >>, eight years to expect to bring the economy back to where it was before the crisis? >> the 497 bills that, while we were in the majority, that we made sure it did not get to the
floor. and the obstruction of the house. i think the public gets it. i think the president has demonstrated time and time again. but president clinton did a good job of outlining how he has reached out to the other side. and also, pointing out how difficult the situation they found themselves and. . the direction and path we are heading down now as well. this is an extraordinary period. i think clinton summed it up well. but the job creation on behalf of president obama and the direction they have us going in. and look at the direction republicans would take us. want to go backward. but even the current house democrats in terms of job creation -- as clinton said, zero. >> you can hear that tomorrow. john larson, democratic caucus
chairman. can see that tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. or 6:00 p.m. in the evening. here is an e-mail. i am disabled. i had a couple of employers who give me a chance. but most of the time i have been fired for just limping badly after a full day. a person can only get fired due to no fault of their own so many times before you just up and accept a light on a disability. -- except the eight lifa life ob ility. caller: what upsets me is that in the president's jobs bill, for there is a section in there that says if an employer advertises to hire somebody, and
10 people apply and they hire somebody, the other nine people can sue the employer if they feel like they have been discriminated against if they had not had a job in the last six months. people are scared of obama as a jobs bill. host: san diego. hello. are you there? go ahead. caller: i am a little frustrated as far as -- you have to speak spanish. in california to get a job. it has been a difficult. i am unemployed. i do not have the money to take a spanish course. and all over my state and city they offer free english class's.
and if i could just find a spanish class -- but i am in my forties. and just having to learn a new language to get work in the united states is a difficult. host: are you saying met has been a requirement for the jobs you have been looking for? -- that learning spanish has been a requirement for the jobs you have been looking for? caller: most jobs are bilingual preferred. host: what kind of jobs? caller: customer service. hospitality. at the airport. i have been applying on line with the airlines and things like that. host: tell us about interviews or some of the process you have been going through.
tell us some of your experiences. caller: i have not had any positives. i am still unemployed. host: have you been on interviews? what have they been like. caller: they seem to go well. the whole question about your preferred language. or do you speak another language. host: columbus, ohio. this is john. good morning. host: you said you stopped looking for work? caller: yes. i was there the 15th and they fired me the 16th. host: of what month? caller: that was in 2005.
it wasn't justified. that was about it. host: how long have you been out of work? caller: since 2005. i have been disabled. host: when did you stop looking? caller: when i got injured. host: texas. good morning. raymond. caller: i do not know what is so hard to understand. everybody lives one day at a time. take it one day at a time. our problem is that we have so much corruption out there. you cannot hear a politician say anything without putting a bunch
of lies in there. when we do not -- this is our country. they feel like they can go out there on the platform and say anything that they feel like. yes, i can do everything for everybody. host: are you unemployed? how long? caller: about three years. i have been working odd jobs. this and that just trying to make ends meet and trying to keep my house. i lost everything almost. just trying to keep my house. host: as far as unemployment insurance, did you apply? caller: yes. i get my unemployment. that came in handy and helped a lot. but that does not replace a job.
host: what type of work have you been looking for? caller: -- you cannot find it at the rate of pay that i was. you have to take what you can get. i was making $25 an hour. i started out making minimum wage and gropper up. and i got my license. and went on from there. host: has anyone offered you a job? caller: yes. but they want to pay you a fraction of what you did make. all because they passed another law that allows them to hire basically inexperienced people to work at a fraction of the pay. host: have you managed to hold
onto a house and things like that? caller: my house was the only thing that i was able to hold onto. and i still have that. for the time being. but everything else, i have lost everything else. it has been a struggle. -- like so many other people, they are one calamity away from living under a bridge. that is what freaks me out every day. and it is just one problem away from living under a bridge. and if we cannot hold our politicians to people who work for us -- for the things that they say, then where are we? host: this from me new york times about mitt romney the's spending when it comes to advertisements.
the site of the democratic national convention is the location for the next caller. this is charlotte. hello. caller: hello. i stopped looking for work. i am the founder of the economic rights movement. there are no jobs. i am trying to get jobs. i live across of ohio. we went to wall street on july 24. we went to the united nations. we are building the world trade centers in new york. there is plenty of money. people do not have jobs because of the system. capitalism does not allow for a everyone to has a job.
host: when did you stop looking for work? caller: back in 2009 because there are no job centers. basically, we need an economics rights movement. our communities in the detroit -- i live in the detroit for four years. empty housing, and the factories. we need the factories. we need a bill. winnie the president to sign an order allowing for people to own these companies that are empty and take the funding and have the people that are ex offenders -- and people coming from the war, and live in them. instead of crying the billbluese
need people to march. host: george is looking for work, hello. are you there? i pushed the wrong button. george, hello. caller: hello. i am unemployed -- i live in new jersey. i have been laid off about six weeks. the market right now is atrocious. there is no money a dented the construction business right now. host: are you looking for the same type of work? caller: imasco carpenter. in the business for 35 years. i managed to raise a family. i managed to keep busy during the downturn. and the contractor i worked for
had a project to do. he could not get it financed. and now i am sitting on my hands. and i have just been scoping market. and right now they are just looking to hire unskilled people. looking to pay half of what i was making. host: what were you making? caller: $30 an hour for the last 30 years. host: have been out of work for six weeks? caller: yes. i was working as a subcontractor so i am not truly entitled to file for unemployment. host: how have you managed to hold on to the things that you have or what are you doing to -- caller: i am pretty close to the end. i have to file for public assistance or see what they can do. i cannot pay the bills at this time. i have a white and two kids.
hos-- a wife and two kids. right now there is no demand for skilled people. what happened, when everything went bad, the labor market went from down to about 25% or 30% of what it was. an order for contractors to work and get contracts, they cannot afford to pay skilled people. i do not know how it is around the rest of the country, but driving around a job site now, most of the people working did not appear to be a normal contractors. and most of the people are working for a third of what i used to work for. host: that is george from new jersey. next call from savannah, georgia. she has stopped looking. caller: good morning. let me tell you this. i stopped looking for work just a couple of months ago. but i realize in my house -- it
is my job. for the people who says they have made $30, $20 an hour -- it is a blessing these days if you can take what ever you make, put it in the palm of your hand, and get out alive. for a caretaker, you do not have to make the same thing. i get out, i think takes. i bake sweet potato pies. when i come home in the afternoon, every dollar counts. so it is no hard thing on looking for a job. people can make their kitchen table their job. this is a big world out here. restarted from ground zero. take what you can get. keep multiplying and pressing on. host: before you worked in a home, what did you do before? caller: i had a restaurant in downtown savannah. that was closed down for me.
my last job -- they let me go. i am a chef from a coke. i was cooking too many brussels sprouts. i am 65 years old. i walked out of the job and they let me go. i picked up my bag and asked god what is next. there is plenty of work. for the skilled carpenter, he does not need to get $30 an hour. he can get $5 an hour. he can rake somebody's shirt. i am going to make it if i have to sell boiled peanuts. i put two children through high school and college. i am on my own and not looking for pity. the only thing i am at sinking got a four is my help. -- the only thing i am a
thanking god for is my health. i have collected unemployment. i just finished getting unemployment. host: another e-mail. we lost jobs during 2007. the congress has not passed the jobs bill that he requested one year ago. a couple international big stories. this is the new york times. a record number of foreigners according to the obama administration were deported in 2011. it says the deported 391,000 foreign people during the 2011 fiscal year. the reported. they included more than 188,000 people have been convicted of crimes in the added state's -- and all time high. also, looking to pakistan.
geographic information systems. i am currently re-training through the committee college program to go into solar work. here in pennsylvania we are faced with the situation where the republicans are holding up a bill that would realign our solar industry, similar to what governor chris christie just did in new jersey. we are going to need the energy matter where it comes from. we are being held back in regard to this because of our overall loyalty to the gas industry. we have some good companies here in the pittsburgh area. we are struggling because they are just -- they are not getting the arm that new jersey has given their solar industry. they are number one on the east coast. i wanted to say, thank goodness for obama.
he is finally -- he cannot to the other night and drive climate change back up on the agenda. i hope we will be part of the debate. the realization of our need to drop carbon emissions 34, if possible, would be instrumental in giving the renewable sector a shot in the arm that it needs. host: you might want to stay with us. at 8:30 are born to talk about the energy policy. and talk about the topics you just brought up. that is at 8:30. here is an e-mail. i have been unemployed and collecting unemployment for one year. one thing i noticed -- the huge pool of talent that has been calling this morning. what happened to the american spirit of on -- entrepreneurship. i feel the government needs to
give assistance to any person that truly want to open a business. this includes assistance and government contracts to get them started. this is michigan. martin. hello. caller: how're you doing? host: fine, thank you. have you stopped looking for work? caller: -- i have stopped looking. i ran a missing children's foundati that took money from the government. it was an unusual situation. people like to categorize people by 99% or 1%. i was actually able to work with companies that were the 1%ers. i probably filled out as many as 600-700 applications.
no go. i have a very good education. i cannot find anything. what astounds me is you just have one caller bank obama. but at the same time talk about new jersey where the republicans are actually in the majority. you know, as both parties help annihilate our economy, and here we sit. to have one guy claiming he is creating jobs. which is complete nonsense. the environment is just in the hole. for my business i had, i had some regulations put on me. and i had to have a compliance government regulations. i just do not understand. the democrats or the republicans were blocking the democrats a
dent of the congress. and have the senate blocking the republicans. host: before we let you go, another to a stop? what happens now? caller: i lost my home. i have a daughter and a handicapped mother. i have taken and no benefits from the government. i have managed to rent a house. i am trying to get my organization back on the ground. host: how are you supporting yourself? caller: everyone needs to stop blaming. these guys did not create jobs. we do not get the same plans. such as the health care insurance that the democrats passed. people talk about the programs. social security, savings plans and government employees can get these. host: i am sorry. we are overtime as far as this segment is concerned.
we appreciate it. coming up, we will take a deeper look at unemployment numbers that came out yesterday. up next pedro da costa will join us. and later a roundtable discussion starting at 8:30. more when "washington journal" continues. >> i watched c-span, c-span 2 and e-book portion of c-span. but it is important to be knowledgeable of what is going
on in in the world. i feel that c-span gives the most information about what is going on on specific subjects were a lot of television does not do that. >> hillary watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created by cable companies in 1979. brought you as a public service by your television provider. >> it is offensive to have people take on the position of public trust and then abuse it. and to do it in such a way -- to turn your noses at individuals. to me, this is the other thing that is bothersome. you can tell that to me. i am a journalist. my job is to do what i do, you do what you do. people who really believed in
this say, the government is wrong and lying. they are out to get me. because i am black. they are trying to do it because -- they use those arguments. and their supporters believe them. to me, that is despicable. >> sunday night, colbert came on corruption at 8:00 p.m. on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest joins us. we siree the 8.1% unemployment. what these numbers mean? guest: you can see the gravity of the situation when people are calling any consents the desperation in their voice. i think the sense we have a debt
to the job market is that we basically stop making progress. that is the fundamental thing that yesterday's report showed. so and acentan 8.1% unemployment rate -- it has been coming down since 2010. we have come down. but since the beginning of the year, we have been steady at this level. the 96,000 number is important. congress looks at the job creation. the monthly job creation number you need to seek to keep up population growth, between 120,000, 160,000. in the grand scheme of things, you are losing ground in terms of the job market. host: what is the relation between the drop and people who stopped looking for work? guest: it was the overwhelming portion of the jobless rate was
because the 368,000 people dropped of the labor force. there was nothing to cheer about in terms of the drop in the unemployment rate. host: when it comes to categories and sectors -- professional businesses, help industries, a leisure and hospitality -- still showing strength. what about those sectors? guest: there is a cyclical element to health and education. people always need it. demand is not go down. sometimes it goes up. because when people are out of a job, they go back to more training. devitt boost in education. in terms of sectors, one of the frightening trends we saw was a return -- a renewed decline in manufacturing employment. if 15,000 net drop in employment for manufacturing. and been a factor is important,
while it is only by six of our economy, is the alternate cyclical industry. it takes a big swings in either direction. the look. it as a leading indicator. it is a disturbing sign. host: our guest is here until 8:30. in asking questions about unemployment numbers. for democrats , republicans and independents. all the stories this morning talk about the numbers. they also mentioned the fed. and its role now. what is the role? guest: the federal reserve says if the economy did not improve, they would likely take another step in terms of delivering some monetary stimulus. pumping money into the economy
to try to get lending going. so that criteria seems to have been met in terms of this last -- to confirm the trend is worsening rather than improving. there is a high expectation that they will have some kind of action. they could do different things. they can announce new purposes of the bonds. focus on other government bonds. or more likely, mortgage bonds. which it did during the crisis. it would be to lower rates and kind of give and housing market that has been showing, after several years and a threat, has been showing modest signs of attraction. to give it some jews to get things going. in that important area of the economy. -- to give it some juice to get going. in that important area of the economy. it is a controversial -- about
the efficacy. it had allowed critics. qe three already had critics before it even get out of the gates. you had mitt romney me saying that it is a bad idea. he already said -- political pressure on the fed by saying he would not renominate ben bernanke. and that he is not done a great job. there's a lot of pressure on the fed. the fed does not operate in a political vacuum. officials will say time and time again that they will make decisions. host: to have options what comes to interest rates? guest: it does. they can buy more bonds. that will at the margin or long- term rates and boost asset prices. there's a debate as to whether but is just a modern-day version of trickle-down. there is no real evidence that they are lending.
something that the british central bank that bernanke has expressed interest in. the funding for lending scheme. it is basically, rather than pumping money into the economy, you basically provide cheap funding to financial institutions. you have to show that you are doing x amount of lending in certain areas of the country. and the bank of england has launched this program. the worry is that because the economy is so weak, there just might not be the demand for credit. you might have to put people like the -- the caller's we have gotten so far back to work so they have the money to spend. host: and help capitalize banks as far as giving them money so that they can start lending as well? guest: we certainly did. we are oscillate -- in making sure that they lent the might properly. host: franklin, virginia.
on our democrat's line. this is annette. hello. you are on. caller: the unemployment rate is up today because -- a lot of people are working on jobs. and are terminated for the wrong reasons. guest: did you have such an experience? caller: yes. i said a person was selling drugs and the school. i told the superintendent. but instead, she terminated me. guest: one of the things that happens in a weak economy is that people are let go more easily for any given reason. employers just seem to of the upper hand when it comes to hiring. some of the callers to the
earlier alluded to that. there were offering you a job, but there were born to pay you a quarter or a fifth of what they used to. because the job market is weak, it gives the employers leverage to kind of do as they please. it is something we see in the productivity data. the last upward revision to second quarter productivity suggests that employers are squeezing more out of every worker. you hear that anecdotally about people working longer hours. and taking less vacation. another aspect of the weak job market is that because of wares have the upper hand they can hire people on a very temporary basis, on a contract basis and not give them full benefits and full vacation. host: pennsylvania. peter, hello.
happened but-johnson suddenly vanished. that it with the fed comes in. the fed still could have felt that the re-effect. host: president obama and mitt romney talk about the release of the jobs numbers. president obama talked about his record on job creation. [video clip] >> after us -- after losing 800,000 jobs a month before i took office, we added jobs every month. [applause] that is not good enough. we need to create more jobs faster. we need to fill the hole left by this recession. we need to come out stronger than we went in. there is a lot more than -- that
we can do. when congress gets back to town, you need to send them a message. he of middle-class families and small businesses the confidence of knowing their taxes will not go up. everybody agrees we should not raise taxes on the middle class. let's hit it done now. -- let's get it done now. if the republicans on seriously concerned about joblessness, to the country right now if congress will pass the jobs plan i send them one year ago. host: what is the president's jobs bill? guest: it has $50 billion in
infrastructure components. it has incentives for companies to hire more people. it has the housing component that would make easier for homeowners to refinance. the criticism that can be made is that this came a little late in the game. we have been in this crisis for a long time. it seems a little late to blame something that was proposed nine months ago given that it was only starting to take food, even if it had been implemented. the other thing is that, even though it sounds like a lot of money, $400 million is a meat stimulus plan. look at china. china is struggling with its
own economic problems. it launched a $157 billion in infrastructure spending. there gdp is smaller than ours. you could are that it is a meek plan. you are giving incentives to create jobs. that is not necessarily a job. companies can receive incentives. they want to see a product turn into a concrete use of the employment. if the president can make it clear between their spending and job creation, people would be more willing to take them at their word. there would be tax breaks and a with boost employment in an indirect way.
caller: i hope you let me speak here. i got cut off the one time. it is an employer -- an important topic. i got laid off. i am a construction worker. i am heading to north dakota. it is an adventure. i have the savings to do it. they have 2.8% employment the best unemployment. i have experience in roofing and painting. -- they have 2.8% unemployment. wilson and not an outsider. the germans the best -- i am not
an outsider. the wagons were manufactured by the germans. i am coming out there and moving tuesday. host: what type of work will you do? caller: anything i can get. i want to say to the people out there, i am bringing my rifle and my firm hand tools and i can be an asset to the west farm hand tools and i can be an asset to be -- and i can be an -- farm hand tools and i can be an asset out there. guest: people have not been willing to move because they could not say -- sell their home. i would be willing to locate if -- relocate if there were
better prospects elsewhere. people in the going to get diversities in different cities. -- going to universities in different cities. there is an energy boom in parts of the country. that is helping north dakota. the stories are few and far between. it is a small population. host: we have someone on our democratic line from georgia. caller: yes. i was calling about the unemployment rate in georgia. what i do not agree with is that they cut back on the unemployment weeks. they cut the amount of money you get for your unemployment, even though you were making $300 or $400 a week. they cut it down.
host: when did that happen and how did it work? is it after a certain number of weeks, it gets reduced? caller: when he first applied, they tell you how much you will get. -- first apply, it tell you how much you will get. it come in and day comeback -- and they come back with an adjustment of what you will get per week. it is half of that. you start off with 20 weeks. when i started one year ago, almost one year ago, it was 16 weeks for the first time. then they cut out before -- the fourth tier. i do not agree with that.
he cannot find a job, especially in this area, which is a rural area. it is the countryside out here. guest: one of the things the jobs report did not mention is the extension of jobless benefits. as your caller suggested, there are a lot of people for whom it is a basic life line at a difficult time. the proposals i have seen our constructive and involve the best there is concern and opposition for jobless benefits -- there is concern and opposition for jobless benefits. one of the ways to get around that would be to tie the benefits to part-time work. it would have people having
something to do and keep their son kills polished. -- keep their skills polished. host: the average week of unemployment is 39.2 weeks. unemployment benefits last for about -- guest: for about six months. then there is a renewal. after the crisis, unemployment benefits went beyond that. there were a couple of changes. i do not recall how long they last. we look at weekly jobless claims numbers. the jobless claims have been consistently lower than 400,000 per week. if you look at a lower number that is hardly ever reported, that includes everyone on
extended emergency benefits and state and local benefits and federal benefits, the number is closer to 7 million. it is exciting. unemployment is a search. the longer you remain unemployed, -- unemployment is aimed scourge. -- is a scourge. ben bernanke has lagged the rest of long-term unemployment. -- flagged the risk of long-term unemployment. caller: i thought i would call in and give my view of where i see we are headed. there are two factors. excesses' in the real economy
and access is in the credit markets. -- excesses in the real economy and excesses in the credit markets. people think government can come in and fix this. what you have our attorneys that have no background in economics that try to fix this stuff. a good example is the fellow who called in and wanted to subsidize and economically unviable industry, solar. the government would have to borrow from the chinese to subsidize this industry. we are gagging on data right now. host: your question for our -
gagging on debt right now. host: your question for our guests? caller: do you think the fed should come in with another q e three. -- qe 3 host: the color has a libertarian view. -- the caller has a libertarian view. i think the federal reserve has been as proactive as it has been because there as been paralysis on the fiscal side in the united states.
there really has not been any effort on the republican -- on the political side to do much about the job situation. the burden has fallen disproportionately on the central bank. with the too much government is the problem, that is a discussion we have been having since the beginning of time. host: unemployment by education level, 12% with those with high school education, with college, 6.6%. guest: people like to talk about the more education you have the less unemployment you have. unemployment has gone up for all of the groups. college graduates or not, people are struggling.
you could have a large student loan and not find a job. host: we have a caller. go ahead. caller: how many of the jobs are jobs with which people can support themselves or their families? guest: you make a fair point. the unemployment rate is one measure of unemployment. there is also a measure that
tries to take into account people who are working part time, but would rather be working full time. if you include other categories of discouraged workers, you get a rate closer to 15% or 16%. he calls reflect that sentiment. host: there was a story this morning. the jobs number is probably wrong. only once in the past three numbers has the government not revise its estimate on how many jobs were created in the previous month. it takes years to get an accurate figure. that is not to say the number is a mirage. there is a chance this could be advised later on? guest: it could be revised completely. it can definitely change. it is not going to change in
time for the election. these are the numbers we will have going into it. the president will have to make a case that things are better. mitt romney will have to make a case that things have stopped improving. the president can make the case. unemployment was jumping 1.3% every month. as of last year, the improvement has stalled. something is not quite working well. host: mitt romney made the case on the campaign stump and talked about the president's performance. [video clip] >> he said he would raise incomes for people. they have gone down about $5,000 per family. he said he would create new businesses. we are at a 30 year low in new business start-ups. he was going to get people back
to work. remember his stimulus plan? if we let him borrow $787 billion, he would hold unemployment below a% -- 8%. it has been 43 months above 8%. 23 million americans are unemployed or underemployed or have stopped looking for work. it is a national tragedy. guest: unemployment works in the opposition's favor by definition. he has to make the case that things have stopped improving. you cannot say things have not improved over the last four years. we had been -- the eye of the storm in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression. europe is certainly affecting us. there is a crisis there.
one of the reasons we are getting weakness in u.s. manufacturing is because of the global slowdown. host: a federal reserve policy question for you. would there be a downgrade after qe3? guest: absolutely not. the only way another downgrade would come is if there was another debacle over the debt ceiling. there are some tax breaks that are going to last and some spending cuts that will be implemented. that will lead to a sharp drop- off in government spending. going back to the collar's point about the government -- -- caller's point about government -- rather than being a force for
continuing improvement, we are seeing cuts in government jobs. i would think the government and the private sector are neutral forces. who can deliver the best results in a certain situation? there is an $800 billion stimulus well spent and an $800 billion job stimulus that was not well spent. the types of jobs being created -- there is a whole range of them. there are a lot of low income town is being created. that has been the case for many years. mitt romney pointed to something that is relevant. wages have been falling. that goes to another point your
caller made about another round of qe. but data easing could lead to inflation. when you talk about -- quantitative easing could lead to inflation. wages make up about 70% of business costs. people are not hitting higher pay. i think it is wise for policymakers to be looking for the types of actions they can take. sitting idle does not seem like the ideal course of action. host: pedro da costa join us to talk about the employment numbers. on the democratic line, hello. caller: he made a statement a while back told you about the
obama and about the economy and the jobs and his jobs bill and that he made the statement that he handed back over to congress and the house of representatives and the senate for over one year. he mentioned that in his state of the union address. he said it has been over a year and it is too late to act on it now. it is never too late to act on it now. they should have been looking at it when they gave it to him. the republicans did not want to bring tears to the floor. nobody -- bring tears to the floor. nobody knows -- bring theirs to the floor. nobody knows what is in it. the door is closed on both
sides. whatever the republicans some debt, the democrats hold up on the other hand. -- submit, the democrats hold up on the other end. guest: i was not trying to say the president has done nothing. we sing, as a country, to not have a contingency plan for national emergencies like an unemployment crisis. the-we seem -- we seem, as a country, to not have a contingency plan for national emergencies like an unemployment crisis. that seems to be something that is a bipartisan issue. host: rachel from texas on the independent line.
caller: i was yesterday when they were talking about the unemployment numbers coming out. so many people get excited when the employment numbers -- and unemployment are high because it makes the president look bad -- the unemployment numbers are high because it makes the president look bad. but there are families that are struggling. mitt romney was campaigning and he got one of obamas's speeches. he was talking about creating jobs and that -- oh, -- oho bama's speeches. he was talking about creating jobs and that is what obama was saying.
host: we will let the guest respond to that. guest: i do not think anybody is excited to see other people unemployed. i am sure there is some's thinking they might get traction out of that. the-some pollster -- some pollster thinking they might get traction out of it. host: will unemployment go up? guest: because of the participation rate we were talking about that is responsible for the unemployment rate, people will re-enter the labor force and the jobless rate will go up.
the fear for the fed is that the trend could be reversing. job growth needs to be around 120,000 to 150,000 to keep up with population growth. gdp is under 2%. because we have lost so much ground, this is a good way to keep it in perspective. we lost 8 0.5% -- 8.5 million during the -- during the recession. host: a couple more calls. corporate -- corpus christi texas -- corpus christi, texas. go ahead.
caller: i have a question about jobs. there is a trend. people have money to buy bonds. maybe they should buy gold and silver and precious metals. is that something that would be good, bad, at our neutral for us? -- bad, or neutral for us? guest: i would say it is neutral. there is a certain fear that leads to rising metal prices. some people are afraid for future inflation and they put their money in gold. people afraid of inflation would make treasury yields high.
they are at historic lows right now. it is an increasing trend. gold is a volatile investment. a lot of financial advisers -- i am not a financial adviser. i would not advise you betting all of your money on gold. host: one more call. virginia beach, virginia. republican line. caller: i do not think anyone will do 93 got us into the economic crash we got into. the-81 will disagree -- any one will disagree that greed got us into the economic crash we got into. doesn't it make sense that we get our economy back before we
guest: we can take comfort that we are not slipping into another recession. it comes out -- every four weeks we get another employment report. we will have another two before the election. there will be plenty of data. but there is little sign that there will be anything in the future. host: do we still have jobs being created? have we hit the bottom? it we did hit the bottom. there was an economic bottom. we emerged from the recession. we had a severe contraction, the worst in decades. we emerged from it pretty strongly at first. it is losing momentum. the theory is that we are going
toward another downturn. that can be determined by the policy actions taken next week. pedro da costa is an economic correspondents. he is on twitter. thanks for joining us to talk about this. coming up on the program, we are going to take a look at the energy policies of the men running for president. later on, we will talk about secretary of state clinton's trip to china and what it means for u.s.-china relations. all of that coming up on "washington journal."
>> americans have been patient. they have supported this president in good faith. the time has come to turn the page. the time has come to put the disappointment of the last four years behind us, to put aside the divisiveness and recrimination and look ahead at what can be. now is the time to restore the promise of america. many americans have given up on this president. but they have never thought about giving up, not on themselves, not on each other, not on america. what is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. it does not take a special government commission to tell us
what america needs. what america needs is jobs, lots of jobs. [applause] >> know this america, our problems can be solved. our challenges can be met. the pact may be harder, but it leads to a better place -- path may be harder, but it leads to a better place. there are goals for manufacturing, energy, education, and the deficit. real, t-mobile plans that will lead to new jobs and rebuild -- real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs and rebuild this country. >> fine speeches sunday democratic and republican conventions at the c-span library.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about the energy issues when it comes to campaign 2012 and taking a look at what both candidates have to offer as far as energy proposals. two gets join me for this conversation. the first is david kreutzer, a climate change research fellow. we also have gene karpinski with the league of conservation voters. can we start off with philosophy and what both men bring to the table and what they are thinking? how would you define president obama? guest: the election is about choices, the choice of who will lead the country for the next four years. when it comes to energy policy, it is an incredible -- and
incredibly stark choice. president obama has been leading us to an energy future. we can move to new, clean sources -- renewable, solar. we need to keep moving forward. unfortunately, mr. romney's policy was written by big oil and is for big oil. that is not a path for the future. that is a path for more climate change pollution and it takes us back with. our energy policy is critically important. we need to go forward with clean, renewable and built on a policy that president obama has put forth. guest: clearly, around the custody markets more. he looks like he's -- clearly,
romney trusts the markets more. obama's attempt to switch us to the energy future is almost laughable. there are more green jobs in septic tank cleaning than in solar utilities. there is a problem with solyndra. when you try to force technology to go forward, it does not work. it has not worked in spain and germany. we see people backing off worldwide with subsidies to expenses to force energy sources that are not competitive. we may get all sorts of renewables that are competitive. to attempt to force this in billions of dollars of subsidies is not helping clean energy. host: could these kinds of
energy's exist without subsidy help? guest: we have -- would these kinds of energies exist without subsidy help? death we have begun to say -- guest: in the united states congress, as early as this year, a bipartisan majority said we need to extend those tax breaks. let's get to a level playing field. tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for millions the-for many, many years. -- for many, many years. if you go to places like
california or the data or colorado, -- california or colorado, those are on the path to -- those on the path to an energy future -- those states are on a path to an energy futures. guest: there is a bit of thought that people keep repeating and people think it is true. -- the fraud that people keep repeating and think is true. it is that oil companies get billions in subsidies. it goes to the solar panel manufacturers. of those industries get a 9% tax credit. and gas and oil only get a 6%
tax credit. there are huge subsidies going to wind and solar. they say they are going to lose money if you do not subsidize them. host: if you want to join our gentleman to talk about policies opposed by president obama and mitt romney on energy policy, here is your chance to do so. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-737-0001 or republicans and -- for republicans and 202- 628-0205 for independents. guest: at the moment we are in, we need to rely on all sources
of oil. we will continue to have oil and natural gas. when we look at with the future is, it is about a cleaner, newark energy future. let me give you one example. last month, the president announced an historic new proposal built around the epa. we need to make cars go twice as far on a gallon of gas b. it creates energy jobs of the future and reduces our dependence on climate pollution. mitt romney opposed that plan. that makes no sense. he is backcourts. he is by and forbid -- he is back words he is by and for big
oil. host: this article says, when it comes to mr. romney's energy policy, it would include streamlining and fast track in the approval processes, amending the clean air act, open reserves to exploration and extract shale gas and used a darpa-like funding mechanism. you can respond. guest: round the's plan sounds like the mirror image or opposite -- romney's plan sounds like the mirror image or opposite. when obama came into office, his administration rescinded the existing plant.
they blocked yucca mountain. he is anti-nuclear. he has a secretary of energy who does not own a car and said we need to get our gasoline prices $9 or $10 a gallon. we see and anti-fossil fuel agenda and we see wasteful subsidies going to technologies that do not work. these companies have gone out of business. solyndra and others. hundreds of billions of dollars. we give loan guarantees to companies that do not need loan guarantees. goldman sachs cannot get their
own funding? that is unbelievable. host: this is president obama in iowa last month. he brought up the topic of romany -- romney. [video clip] >> governor romney wants to get rid of the tax credit for wind energy. he says these sources of energy are imaginary. he needs to come to iowa. he will find out there are 7000 jobs in this state that depend on the wind industry. these jobs are not that -- not fads. they are the future. let's start investing in clean energy that will create jobs and secure our future. that is the difference in this election.
host: jacksonville, north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: all of these renewable bills, solar -- they are not functional. we are losing money. solyndra and all of these others, we are subsidizing them and as soon as we give them money, they go broke. you get the idea that we are broke. we are $16 trillion in debt. we would get jobs if we would have the oil pipe line. that is more than 7000 jobs. the fact that the president just eliminated killing in the gulf, that has eliminated thousands of jobs. now we are subsidizing brazil to be drilling in the gulf. this is totally ridiculous.
we need leadership. obama is not doing any leadership. he is taking the country down and we are the ones who are paying for it. host: you talked about functionality when it comes to the wind and solar industry. guest: not every company makes it. they are creating tens of thousands of jobs. part of that is because they are building the cars of the future. if you drive around colorado or iowa, there are growing new industries. that is why there is bipartisan support. not every single business will make it. there is a growing industry in the solar industry and the went
industry and the industry to make our buildings and cars more efficient. the jobs of the future are the clean energy future. they are mirror opposites. it is a clear choice. that is why this is an important conversation. president obama will take us forward. mr. romney was to take us back. guest: they just shut down production of the volt because people are not buying them. the automobile companies went through bankruptcy. they would have gone through bankruptcy either way. a group of people got bailed out. the caller made a good point. if you have to subsidize the production of something and if it dies without subsidies, it is
contracting the economy. that is not helping anybody. we need to make producers make their own choices and create products consumers want to buy. host: increasing standards on cars. is that a good idea for the president? guest: what we have in the cafe standards is forcing consumers to buy cars that cost more, that are less safe and are smaller so that they can say, you are saving money on gasoline. people do not want to do everything to save money on gasoline. they want to do something. there were all sorts of course trading deals going on. there are different standards for different cars. it is that clear that there will be any efficiency increased.
guest: i am glad you sharpens that. this is an example between -- sharpened that. this is an example of the difference between president obama and mitt romney. let's not forgets, -- let's not forget, the oil industry does get subsidies. they do not disagree with that. that is why they oppose the effort. every month in congress, they try to cut those subsidies. the oil industry has opposed that vote every time because they want to keep getting that money. the guest: you are giving a tax break to one industry. the window manufacturers, the
solar panel manufacturers. let's get back to the fundamental question. are we in favor of efficiency? absolutely. people want to save money. they did not want to be forced to save money at it cost them more or reduces their comfort or makes convenience less. host: you can bring that up later on. we will take a call. daniel is on the independent line. caller: i want to ask a question about putting solar panels in the white house. it was an experiment. president reagan came in and they took them out. we need to move forward on that technology.
china is the one making all of the solar panels in the world. if we move forward, wouldn't we be further along? guest: the solar panels you are talking about work water heater solar panels. the- -- were water heater solar panels. the technology was forced before its time. they leaked. it is not that president reagan was against saving money. things are leaking, they are inefficient. we are going to move forward. energy efficiency has improved 30% in the last three decades. people wanted to save money and bought those things at a cost that is less. host: we are talking like efficiency when it comes to oil and natural gas? guest: indices have gotten more
efficient because they do not want to waste money. they do not want people to tell them how to save money. they are looking for ways to save money all of the time. when you have mandates, you are forcing technology that may not be the best choices for them to save energy. guest: for about 15 years, the fuel economy standards stayed the same. then the law changed. there was a requirement from the government to make our cars go farther on a gallon of gas. the government of georgia had it right. for 20 years, that industry stopped growing. what we have seen in the last six years, 100,000 new jobs in cellar. the new technology is being developed. most of the growth in solar is in china.
china is cleaning our clocks when it comes to new energy sources. it is time for this country to use the the old american ingenuity to be a leader in efficiency, be a leader in efficiency across the board for our buildings, the a leader for the clean energy of the future, solar, wind, geothermal. host: in michigan, brian. guest: this is joe out of tennessee. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: when they made the windmills' to grow out of the ground, with -- if we stuck with that, we would have had the electric windmills long before we did get them started. any kind of renewable energy -- let's do it right now while we
have the chance. let's not go back to oil for the simple reason that everything under the ground is going to run out. we have to start hitting our energy from what is natural on this earth. it will last as long as the earth. thank you. host: you basically want to take the advantage now. guest: the son is going to burn out so let's the sunshine is going to burn out, so let's give up -- the sunshine it is turning out, so let's give up on lights and use nuclear energy. to get back to the point of efficiency, the car standards were the same. car efficiency varied with gas
prices. i can show you the diagram. another example. my dishwasher that i have now is the same model that i had in 1994. the difference is this one saves me to balance of hot water for every load it runs. a generous gaffe -- a generous guess is 8 cents. it takes no-it takes 2 1/2 hours. the old -- it takes 2 1/2 hours to run it and the old one took three hours. it is grossly inefficient. they mentioned those 8 since over and over. host: you talk about when and so being part of the future,
what needs to be in place so we can depend more on wind and solar? guest: maybe the sunshine burnt out some day, but it will last longer than the oil and the cold and the gas. guest: it is going to run out in three centuries. guest: if you look at wind power, in many places in the country, it is highly competitive in terms of electricity. solar is not there across the board. in the state of michigan -- 29 states have renewable efficiency standards. you have to have 70% of your energy from clean energy sources. those states i leading the nation. california -- those states are leading the nation.
california has 1/3 of its energy from renewable. china is cleaning our clock. that is the story in california and nevada and iowa. that is what president obama goes to those states. that is why there is bipartisan support for the policies. the requirement to get more wind and solar and to get a level playing field, let's get some tax breaks for the new energy. host: we have a call. robert, republican line. hello. guest: i would love to be energy independent. i would like to be self sufficient. i live in tampa, florida. we have 300 days a year where there is sunshine. i looked at putting solar panels
on my house. it would cost $30,000. the payback in mind electric bill would be in excess of 20 years. most of the equipment made in the electric industry is 7-20 years. i cannot see how it will ever be economically feasible. it could be 10-20 years to get it done. i cannot ever see how solar is ever going to be efficient. i could use solar a lot more times they could use it in ohio or montana or michigan. it would never pay me back. i would have to buy a new system before i ever paid off the one i thought. guest: his story is consistently inconsistent. he tells us when it is competitive. the only places they are getting it is where they mandate it. he says when it is competitive and solar will be competitive.
there or take the lead. president obama has a vision to bring us forward. he supports more oil and gas and coal. they said, let's look at where we need to be in the future. the future is renewables. guest: you make a great point. industries that sell what people want are making record-breaking profits. industries that are selling
things for more than they produce are not. we need to have government resources toward industries that sell products people are willing to pay full cost for. another person is saying we will let people implement their own choices on what they want. the efficiencies, the trade-off they're willing to make. not from here or capitol hill. host: steve from new jersey is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: mr. karpinski stated general election -- general electric and goldman sachs got a subsidy from the government. can he tell me who supported that? can he name names? guest: i did not say that. guest: i did. the department of energy gave the loan guarantee. you can go on there website.
they are proud of it. they have a list of places they loaned money to. you can google the company and find out is a wholly owned subsidiary of goldman sachs. this is not a tinfoil hot conspiracy theory. this is on the department of energy website. host: governor romney as a plan for energy policy. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i know how to get the private sector to create 12 million new jobs. i know what it will take to do that. [applause] let me tell you what they are. number one, i am going to take full advantage of our energy resources, coal, oil, nuclear, renewables. [applause] by doing that, we become energy independent by 2020.
let me tell you something to do. you take full advantage of oil in tight formations. they pump in fluid to get more oil out. it means taking advantage of the pipeline from canada. [cheers and applause] it means turning the gulf of mexico back on so we get oil out of the gulf. over the last four years, the president has cut the number of permits and licenses on federal land and waters in half. i will double the number of licenses and permits so we get more oil and energy. host: several times, he used the term "full advantage. "full advantage." guest: that means allowing industries to get it. if we're running out of it, it
does not fit with what we have seen recently. we should allow industry. when they are allowed, they are getting lots of it. on state and private leases, we see a phenomenal increase. when you look on federal lands, the leases are going down. production is going down. why would we not want lower gas prices? why would we not want to produce more petroleum here? host: if the resources are here, why not open them up? guest: we will keep drilling and a lot of places. there are millions of acres where the oil companies have permits they're not even using. there are places we should not go. off the coast of florida, in the arctic national wildlife rescue -- refuge. it is a gorgeous place. i did not hear the word efficiency from mr. romney. that is the cheapest, safest
way. it can reduce our demand but up to half. sadly, he opposes the fuel economy standards. he says the word renewables as part of his mixed, but if you look at his policies, and good luck in finding it promoted. wind, solar, geothermal is the wave of the future. that is where we need to get to. mr. romney's policy was by and for the oil companies. it will take us backwards. it will not help us. the sun and wind are the future. that is where we need to go. guest: to allow companies to get petroleum to turn into gasoline to sell to consumers, if they do more of that, that helps the consumers. that is a pro-oil consumer program. that is for people who drive cars and leave the house. we want to keep those prices lower. to call that a pro-industry
program is silly. why would prices go up so much? if it were easy to economize and cheap, people would be doing that already. guest: the fuel efficiency standards for cars are incredibly popular. they say consumers money. i have been driving a hybrid for more than 10 years. i have saved hundreds of dollars each year as we go forward because that was an investment in the future. efficiency saves money. it is quickest, cleanest, cheapest way to do things. to make our buildings more energy efficient, that is an example. you are creating new jobs to retrofit buildings. you are saving money on utility bills. i am shocked, david, that you think deficiency is a bad idea.
-- that you think he efficiency is a bad idea. guest: the efficiency standards do not give consumers additional choices. you have a hybrid. that was there before this. i think you made a wrong calculation. if people are using it, we do not need subsidies. let people make their own choices. host: let's take a call. flint, mich., democrats line. caller: i think the elephant in the room is, why are we giving subsidies to big oil corporations that massively profitable? they are sitting on all this money. i do not think it is a coincidence that these heads of corporations are generally republican. they are holding this money to make president obama look bad. i really wish your speakers would refer to our president not
as obama but as president obama. host: thank you. guest: when companies make money, they are bad, we want to tax them so they do not make it. when they're losing money, we want to subsidize. the $4 billion is not a subsidy to gas and oil. it is a tax feature. if you want to do the tax structure, great. it is a tax break that goes to the solar and wind manufacturers. auto manufacturers. it is very broadly defined. it is not an oil and gas subsidy. they are making money because they're selling something people want. guest: you had it right on. the oil companies are making record-breaking profits. $4 billion in subsidies. they oppose the efforts to repeal them. we need a new energy future. that is why we support president obama. thank you very much. host: naples, fla., are you
there? caller: both are right. they are talking about different time frames. we need energy independence now. if we were we did have our own energy independence, it would create thousands of jobs instead of purchasing offshore oil. gene is right in that we need energy sources of the future. these gentlemen are present what we have in congress today. we're arguing instead of working on a common solution. host: is their common ground? guest: do not know. i am not against new energy sources. it does not make sense to get rid of the ones that were now. subsidize the ones that do not work now. we will give new energy sources over the next centuries. it does not make sense to get rid of what works for something
that you think might eventually work. let it come forward. we have all kinds of technologies that come forward. you do not give them a century ahead of time. guest: elections are about choices. we do not agree. one set of policy choices takes us forward to clean energy future. one set of policy choices takes us back to polluting energies by big oil. there's a choice on november 6. energy policy is the clear choice. we are for president obama because he wants to move toward a clean energy future. host: americans want to buy american energy and the energy independent. we do not want to be at the mercy of saudi government. the only way to increase u.s. oil production to help us is if the oil companies are nationalized. tell me how i am wrong. let me go back to the first point. how much outside oil are we taking in? guest: about 25% of our total.
it has shifted. guest: we are at our lowest level of using imported oil in more than 20 years. that is thanks to policies put in place. guest: it is not. guest: fuel economy standards will continue that trend. we will keep drilling for oil and gas. there is no doubt about that for a while. eventually, we have got to get beyond it. reducing dependence on oil is critically important. we have done that. that is the wave of the future. guest: the reduction of imports has come from two places. the economy is weak. there has been a dramatic increase on private and state leases in north dakota, texas, and other places. there's a huge increase in oil production where the oil companies are allowed to do it. unfortunately, that is not on all of the federal land. that is why we're having these
imports. host: i should not have to subsidize rich people's gas guzzlers. the independent line. caller: we know the future is modernized buildings. we will graft onto those things. that is the future. people want that. they know that solo works because mit, harvard, smart grids are trying to fight the fortune 500, but they cannot. they have no money. host: illinois, unless one of you wanted to respond. dixon, ill., terry, democrats line.
caller: i am going to talk to the gentleman from the heritage foundation. i remember paying $4 in 2006. a barrel of oil was going for $145. oil hit a high last summer at $110. we were paying $4. why do we have to pay subsidies to oil companies? through history, a lot of oil companies went bankrupt that.gov money. i think we should pull the subsidy. there's plenty of oil. you cannot say otherwise. paying $145 a barrel. today we're paying $95 a barrel. but the gas prices are still high. we are exporting gas every month. the man from heritage, this is the same place that ran articles
about troopergate. host: we will keep it to the point of the conversation. guest: oil prices spiked at $100.45. the gas prices did not reflect the full price. the spike did not last long. weeks later, it collapsed. the the $95 price now is the domestic price. it is not the full price. gas consumers are paying the world price of petroleum. that is what we see. what was interesting was how the markets responded despite more drilling and production. we see the price come back down. that is what happens over and over. guest: in a point on subsidies is right on. i appreciate you making it. there's a clear choice on november 6. president obama wants to eliminate the subsidies. mitt romney says no. that is why his policy is written by the oil companies
that want to keep the subsidies. president obama wants to move to the future. host: houston, texas, steve? hello? caller: i am in the oil and gas industry. i have been for 30 years. my father was in it before me. most of my family is. i wonder if any of you have ever been out to a drilling rig. as far as subsidies, letting people keep more of their own money is not a subsidy. host: mr. karpinski. guest: i have visited oil fields. i have done manual labor. we're talking about where we go on energy policy. those are fossil fuels. there are limited supplies. we need to move to new energy future. that is why we support president
obama strongly. he has a vision for the future. he does not eliminate that. he says we need to be more efficient with more renewables. that is the path to the future. we should press the subsidies. host: do you both support building nuclear energy power plants? guest: i would say for building something that does not require subsidies. they can come forward in debt financing. if you have to subsidize it, i am not in favor it. -- not in favor of it. host: what about mr. romney? guest: as far as i know, he is not in favor of subsidizing. guest: we have a couple that have come forward. there is a new wave of subsidies for nuclear. if nuclear power fails, it is up
to wall street frankly. we have a challenge. no one is going to shut down the plant's we have. but we should not subsidize new plants. it seems like they cannot figure out what to do with the waste. it seems like they will not be built without subsidies. host: has mr. obama taken a position? guest: he posted on the question of supporting more subsidies. it is he opposed on the question of supporting more subsidies. guest: the federal government requires the waste to come to the federal government. that is a law. they cannot do something other with it. the federal government cannot take care of it. that is a problem and needs to be fixed. fix that, no subsidies, fine. host: texas, liz, independent line.
caller: i am bothered that oil, gas, and power is an elastic good with the markets can decide demand and supply. the markets can be open and free. i will choose what makes life better. when it comes to energy and medicine and things people need to survive and thrive in an economy. one must consider there is unlimited demand and limited supply. if i cannot get the ice-cream cone because it is too expensive, i do not get it. host: you major point. this e-mail says to use it as a bridge into renewable power is developed to replace fossil fuel. guest: i do not want the
government in charge of things most necessary to me. i do not think they do a good job of providing products. as far as using fossil fuels as a bridge, we will use them when they make sense. how do we know when they make sense? producers sell them at a price consumers are willing to pay without subsidy. we will move to a technologies when producers can produce them at a price consumers are willing to pay without subsidies. that makes sense. let's move forward. we do not have particular genius in washington not exhibited elsewhere in the country for making decisions ups to which the as to which -- for making decisions as to which technologies. the mandate using solar or wind. that is from government telling producers and consumers what they have to use. you do not shine it up by saying clean energy future. it is not.
guest: clearly there is a choice in terms of where we want to go. there is no doubt we will keep doing some drilling. we will need some coal and gas in the short term. it is about a vision, the vision of going to a new clean energy future. let's take the issue of pollution. the epa is doing a tremendous job of cutting pollution from power plants, coal plants in particular. a 90% reduction in mercury pollution. you cannot let industries run amok and trust them to keep the air and water clean. that is not the way it works. the government does have a role to play to protect the air and water, to stop the subsidies and create a clear playing field. that is the clear choice in november about half board.
guest: ever been to increase the government has a role to play. the question is -- everyone agrees the government has a role to play. co2 emissions have dropped below the targets set by cap-and- trade. that is because a guy in texas developed an existing technology to allow us to get natural gas more cheaply than anyone thought we could get it as recently as four or five years ago. we've had this explosion in natural gas production. it is pushing coal out. consumers want cheaper electricity. utilities can produce it cheaper with natural gas. that is what is happening. we've seen co2 emissions dropping because people are buying the cheaper fuel. host: this question is about climate change asking if you believe it is real. where has the romney campaign waged in?
guest: i do not speak for the romney campaign. i believe the climate is changing. i believe some of the warming is because of man-made east mission -- man-made emissions of co2. there is broad agreement on that. the question is whether we're heading to catastrophe. it does not look like it. the temperature trend for the last century has been consistent. it has warmed by about 0.8. for the past 20 years, it is warmed by about 0.8. the past 10 years, it has gone down. that is not a trajectory we need to get panicky about. that is where we are. i do not think co2 is the catastrophe other people would make it out to be. guest: mr. romney as governor, it was suggested it was real.
when he became a candidate, he reversed his position. he would be the only president in modern history to challenge the scientific consensus that climate change is real. use of one of the biggest applause lines at the republican reduce -- you saw one of the biggest applause lines of the republican committee and when he mocked president obama's line about climate change. very strong support when president obama made clear that climate change is real. it is not a hoax. many people say climate change -- that is crazy. that is a leadership position in the republican party. mr. obama says climate change is not a hoax. look at the record-breaking drop -- drought, forest fires,
heat wave. this is a serious problem. anyone who thinks it is not has their head in the sand and does not care about the future of this country. guest: experts do not pin the current drought on climate change. mr. romney mocked president obama on the statement we would reduce the levels of co2. the president was going to stop the oceans from rising. that is a funny line. he was not mocking him in general on climate change. host: michigan, democrats line. caller: unless mr. karpinski is going to come to lansing, mich., and hear what is going on with gm and the workers, you are
absolutely lying about the auto industry and how it is accomplishing so many jobs. i own a small business. i pay for gm to stay alive. who is going to pay for me to stay alive? gm had to take all of that money. they are not going to pay it back. host: when it comes to energy policy, what are you asking? caller: right now, the volt is shot down. they are not hiring. they are shutting it down because nobody can afford this immaculate car. guest: the auto industry is getting back on its feet. in part because of the plan president obama was in part of. the volt, were generally favor
building the cars of the future that are more fuel efficient. that is different our economy and for consumers at the pump. it is good for the planet. michigan has a chance to vote for a very effective policy which president obama supports to make power utilities bring more of their power from wind and solar. we are all for it. it is good for utilities. we need to take more of our power from wind and solar. we are supportive of the measure on the ballot in michigan this fall that will say we will make energy cleaner in michigan. i know that david disagrees with that. president obama supports that policy. mitt romney would not support it. guest: i do not think that collor will want to pay more for electricity if she is struggling with her business. if this were cheaper electricity, you would not need to mandate it.
it is as simple as that. utilities can pass the cost on to consumers. that is clear. if it makes regulators happy, they are happy. regulated utilities get to charge a price that give them a guaranteed profit. caller: it is easy and simple for both. the europeans were ahead of us by a decade with the green future. the economy contracted. they kept it where it was forever like in holland. they have tested here and there as a hobby horse. it collapsed without subsidies. if it is for real and they were behind it with an economy as big as ours, how come it cannot work after all that effort? why should we follow a failure? guest: i do not think you want to attribute what happened in
greece and spain to clean energy. that would not be correct. germany is leading the world in new technologies. germany is one of the strongest economies in europe. ask people in germany whether they made a bet on the future. they did. maybe guest: it did not cause of the problems in spain -- guest: maybe it did not cause the problems in spain. if they believe it worked, they would have doubled down on the subsidies. instead, they backed off. they have subsidies -- more subsidies on solar. when things get tough, they are not doubling down. they are backing off of subsidies. they dramatically reduced them. as a result, we see a dramatic reduction in the installation of solar panels in germany. we need to pay attention to that. we need to learn from mistakes of others. host: we covered a lot of ground.
are there topics we did not cover that you find interesting or of note? guest: i am glad we sharpen on the climate change issue. it is part of the future connotation. on efficiency, renewables, and climate, the choice is very clear. it is the president's vision for our future. i appreciate that. guest: the clean energy future gene keeps talking about is particular technologies being mandated. we see they're not working. solyndra goes bankrupt. we see people are not buying the volt. they're trying to prove this is helping something. it was humorous. if you look at where the green jobs were, 50% of jobs in the steel industry were counted as green. it is a joke the way they have you look at it.
we want people to make their own choices. when they have been doing that, they have been improving efficiencies. host: a discussion about the energy policies with david kreutzer and gene karpinski. coming up, we're going to take a look at a recent trip by secretary of state clinton to china. our guest will be david lampton of johns hopkins university. that is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> these images are not what i call promiscuous illustrations. they were not printed in books or images that appeared in the
victoria weekly. their images people purchased to hang on their walls, to decorate their homes, to supplant or rise to the levels of religious icons. they have honored places in family parlors. >> the civil war images today at 6:00 and 10:00. the battle of antietam on american history tv on c-span3. >> i am angry. it is offensive to have people take on a position of public trust and abuse it. to do it in such a way to almost on their noses at individuals. this the other thing that is
bothersome. it sounds like a stretch. you can tell that to me. i am a journalist. they turn to their supporters, people who believe in them, and said the government is wrong. the airline. they're out to get me. they're doing it because i am black, because i care about you. they use all of those arguments. their supporters believe them. to me, that is despicable. >> sunday night, a look at corruption in the district of columbia's government at 8:00 on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now on the set is david lampton from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. we bring you on because we saw stories this week about secretary of state clinton
taking a trip to china. can we start with the purpose of the trip? guest: she was standing in for the president at a multilateral meeting on economic integration in the pacific basin. she stopped along the way in several countries, including china. we have bilateral issues with each of these stocks. it is fair to say the stock that got the most attention was the china stop. the reception she received from the chinese media was not all that one would hope for. there were lots of editorials. one house to start from the assumption the chinese government has a lot to do with what appears in the chinese press. she received a warm welcome, but the surrounding medium description -- media description
of her policies on china were made apparent in some of the commentary. some of the commentary in the chinese press was personal in character. it was a kind of schizophrenic reception. it was anticipated she would meet with the vice president, soon to be supreme leader of china. that was canceled, allegedly for health reasons. host: the press reports called it a snub. guest: it may have been intended that way. the chinese also canceled a meeting with the vice president of singapore. there was more than one cancellation. she did meet with the president of china. she did meet with a lot of
significant peopl. there is static in the air, let's say. host: as far as policies, what causes the most static between the nations? guest: the u.s.-china relationship is complicated. in the economic relationship, we have frictions. china is the most rapidly growing export market for the u.s., so we have positive equities. the cultural relationship, local government relations between cities and states. those relationships are growing well. this is not an entirely dysfunctional relationship. the problem right now would be generally it the whole relationship with taiwan and the united states ground weapons
sales. -- around weapons sales. the issue of the south china sea. china would interpret a recent u.s. policy to be lining -- aligning more closely with the claimants in opposition to china. we have an alliance relationship with japan. we are strengthening that on several fronts. there is a conflict over islands in the east china sea. china would interpret the u.s. position as aligning more closely with the japanese. much of it is territorial. all of it has to do with the chinese conception of sovereignty. host: our guest will be with us until the end of the program at 10:00. if you want to ask a question about secretary clinton's trip or china relations, here is your chance to do so. we have the phone line for democrats, republicans, and
independents. you can also tweet bus -- tweet us or send an e-mail. tie one, what is the issue? -- taiwan, which is the issue? guest: the communists won the civil war. it said territories japan had taken would go back to china. we thought in 1945 that someone in particular would be the ruler of china. he went to taiwan. the history became a guarantor in a sense of taiwanese security. when we normalized relationships with china under president
carter on january 1, 1979, the taiwan issue between the united states and china was unresolved. in april of 1979, they passed the taiwan relations act. it mandated the president be concerned about the security of taiwan and we contribute to their capacity to defend themselves through weapons sales. china has never accepted this. peng normalize relations with the u.s. saying i will never accept that but will proceed with normalization. since that time, we have both a multifaceted relationship with china. but we have never resolved this issue of sovereignty. taiwan has become more democratic. its people want to maintain their status as an independent factor in the world and
determine their destiny in a democratic way. host: the first phone call is from pennsylvania. paul? caller: david, secretary clinton is without a doubt the finest secretary of state we have had in many years. the united states has got to get our head out of the sand and look at china for what it is. china is a powerful country, economically and militarily. they're updating their military much faster than we are. it is only a matter of time. we have to get serious about that. host: we will leave it there and let our guests respond. guest: i think secretary clinton has done a very big job. i certainly agree with that.
i think it is fair to say. i tune in on one aspect of what you have to say. china is modernizing its military much more rapidly than the united states. there's a big controversy over how much money china spends. even if it is a higher rate of growth in its budget than ours, increments of our spending add up to a lot more money. i think most people who would look at the relative military capabilities would say the united states is still overwhelmingly stronger. it is true china is increasing its military capabilities substantially. it is not the same thing as to say it is overtaking the u.s.. one area where you have an
important point is it is not just the relationship with the united states militarily that is important. china is increasing capabilities relative to its neighbors. many are allies of the united states. we have a security obligation to them. china is increasing its military might. it is not that it is going to overtake the u.s., but it is not reassuring to china's neighbors. we have five of our major security alliances in the world in this region. they have concern over increasing china capabilities and the more assertive and confrontational foreign policy china has. we have to break this into parts. the military power is growing. it is not going to overtake the
united states as a general statement. a lot of things can go wrong even if the united states maintains its own capabilities at a high level. host: they are also way ahead of us in technology. guest: that is true and untrue. the prime minister of singapore was just in china. he made a speech. he pointed out, much to the chagrin of the chinese, that the eight ethnic chinese that have won a nobel prize are or became american citizens. china has never won a nobel prize in the scientific area. if you look at patents and copyrights, china is moving up. but the united states is still overwhelmingly dominant in the issuance of copyrights and patents. if you look at universities and
research, you have to explain why the chinese side to keeley come here for graduate school if you think china is moving along enormously. in all of these dimensions, china is making progress. it started at a low base. it's percentages are high. the u.s. ought to pay attention. we need to invest in research. we need to improve our public schools k-12. we should not be overly relaxed. but on the other hand, we have to keep balance and recognize this country has enormous positive things going for it. host: carlsbad, new mexico, mark, independent line. caller: david, is there a bill before congress that is trying to sell our public land to china to pay for our debt? guest: not to my knowledge.
what is going on is a debate. china has an enormous amount of cash. it is the largest holder of u.s. treasury securities. also local debt, state debt, corporate debt, increasingly an actor and our equities market. china has a lot of cash. the question for china is where it puts it. it would like higher returns than the low interest-rate if it's in the united states. it is looking to put its money into real assets. to be land, factories, research facilities. it could be joint ventures with american firms. the overall issue is not china is trying to buy up our public land. china is short on resources, minerals and so forth. china is trying to deploy its new-found wealth on a global basis to sustain its own economic growth.
the policy issue that arises for the united states is are there certain industries or areas where we want to limit or curtail investment in certain areas. that is the debate going on. host: should we be afraid of china's military or more afraid of them buying up companies like amc theaters? guest: we ought to be proud america has assets the world is willing to bid and overpay for. many of these assets china is interested in cannot be moved outside the country. they are not going anywhere. that does not mean we should not be concerned about the management. we want america that is attractive to foreign investors.
chinese, japanese, koreans, europeans. to remain competitive, we need andorry less about that more about building our infrastructure that allows us to develop new technologies. i think we have to much a siege and defensive mentality rather than recognizing our intrinsic assets as a nation are our competitiveness adn dynamism. as long as we do that, i am not too worried about chinese investment. caller: have a quick question. where do you see the evolution of the chinese-taiwan relationship? do you see the taiwanese getting
recognition from the u.n. as a separate nation? how do you think that will affect the u.s.-chinese relationship? guest: we're in a world where a lot of things seem to be going wrong. for the last five years, the taiwan straits are an area where progress and economic integration and lowering of tensions -- things have been going in the right direction. this is a volatile area. things can change. you could get a new government in taiwan at the next election that would alarm peking. they could overreact. i am not talking about internal stability. but for the last five years, things have been going in the right direction. we ought to continue to reinforce those things that have
produced the lowering of tensions and more construction for -- more constructive relationships. things are going in the right direction. we should continue that. as to whether taiwan will ever be independent and recognized by the u.n., the future is uncertain. i am as certain as you can be on this issue that as long as china is a growing power in the world with friends generated through economic relationships around the world, an influential country and becoming more so, i think there is no chance china will recognize an independent taiwan. that still leaves open the question of the character of a future relationship between taiwan and the mainland of china. i think there are lots of possibilities.
something that is independent, recognized as a nation in the u.n., i think that is one of the lowest probability outcomes i can imagine. host: we have this question from greg. it is about the currency. guest: economists do not agree about how the under-valued or over-valued. there is no agreement on what the equilibrium exchange rate is. if you cannot do that, you cannot do other calculations. as a general statement, signed up for 20 years -- china for 20 years has had export-oriented growth. mostly by virtue of its lower labor costs, it has announced an enormous global trade surplus.
this has enabled it to invest in u.s. treasurys and so forth. the global economy has its own mechanisms to create equilibrium. labor costs are beginning to go up in china. some industry is moving back to the u.s. some is going to vietnam, an india, and so forth. china cannot ignore economic gravity forever. those pressures are coming into china. the trade surplus has diminished. host: one of our viewers asks about the overall downturn in china. guest: china has a high fraction of its economy in exports. it was hit very hard by the global economic downturn, particularly the high labor cost
areas. when secretary clinton said on several occasions to chinese leaders, we're in the same economic boat, that is a statement the chinese agree with. inter-dependence has grown over the last 35 years. we have territorial and human rights concerns with china. the inter-dependence is one of the forces pulling us together and not driving us apart. host: the e-mail says china is guilty of threats that undermine our economy allowing their economy to flourish and increase their military. what is the driving force behind unwillingness to support sanctions on iran?
guest: you have two sets of issues. we could throw in syria on that question. we have intellectual property rights. host: you can address the iran issue. guest: the whole issue of intellectual property and cyber theft, intellectual property is a growing issue in the relationship. the viewer is correct to point that out. in terms of sanctions and iran or syria, china has a set of interests that somewhat align with hours on iran. it has a set of interests that are divergent. the interests that are important to try and bring it into conflict with us are a couple. china wants to buy increasing amounts of oil and natural gas
from tehran. much of the rest of the world is sanctioning that industry gives china some leverage with iran. they need to sell that energy to earn. there is an economic and energy supply dimension to this that is important to china. china is looking for a place to deploy capital. in helping -- developing -- investing in that is something like to do. the rest of the world is isolating iran. i think china has a strategic interest. it does not want a middle east and central asia dominated by the united states. to the degree it can work with russia to offset u.s. influence in the region, that is something they wish to do.
in the end, the united states stands for regime change in iran. china is getting alarmed at the regime change inclination. it does not like to endorse big power intervention into what it sees as domestic issues on which it has many vulnerabilities at home. on the other hand, china does not want to be seen as a pariah. it does not want a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east or anywhere else. if saudi arabia gets them and other countries, the area becomes more unstable.
therefore, china's energy supplies become more unstable. i would say china is conflicted. on balance, it finds itself in opposition with the means the u.s. proposes to deal with iran. host: two tweets. china has become aggressive beyond its own borders. what about tibet's relationship to the u.s.? guest: we have two sets of questions. whatever you want to say about china and its military policy, it is not the soviet union. that is whether you look at the nuclear arsenal or the deployment of its ground and naval and air forces. the problem is a function of
conflicting sovereignty claims on the periphery of china. over china's long history, it has had many sets of borders that have been changed. where the outer limits of china are in a sense of borders is an ethereal concept. when china is stronger, it likes the bigger borders. that is natural. when is weak, the neighbors like the smaller border. china is working with its neighbors to sort this out. we see this in the east and south china sea and in tibet. i think it is important to point out china has solved almost all of its land borders to the benefit of the other claimant. china does not have many land borders.
it has left itself with messy maritime claims. that is what we're reading about now. i do not think the right model of thinking about his use of force is hitler or the soviet union. on the other hand, where you have conflicting borders, one side tends to see the other as pushing aggressivon. is complicated and dangerous. i do not think the cold war model is the way to look at it. tibet is twice as big as texas with 3 million people. when china was expansive, tibet was under the sovereignty of china. when china was week, -- weak, tibet for all intents and purposes was independent. the dalai lama does not assert
tibetan independence. he wants a high degree of autonomy for it within the framework of china. the united states has consistently said that tibet is a part of china, but we would like more autonomy and humane governance with the right of cultural preservation for tibet. the dalai lama is one of the more moderate people in his own movement. one of the big questions for the future is if he dies without a resolution of the issue, will the centrist position become more polarized and give rise to a more intense situation? i have said to the chinese, you should be dealing with him. he is more likely to be more flexible